Talk:Indian reservation/Archive 1

3rd world

This article needs something on the Third World economic and health conditions on most reservations. Also, on the failed attempt (in the 1960s I think) to privatize reservations by subdividing the land and transferring ownership to individuals and the negative impact this had. Redandblack 15:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Bureau of Indian Affairs needs a mention, as does government cheese. :) jengod 20:59, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

flags

I added the flag to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation article. I think it would be a nice touch to do this with other reservations. Some of the flags are truly beautiful. kwami 01:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

History

I'm not that familiar with the history of reservations, but I do know that many treaties made before The Indian Act of 1851 included provisions whereby tribes would keep or reserve specific areas within larger areas of land that they ceded to the U.S. This should probably be mentioned as a precedent leading to the 1851 Act. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide View Header?

What is the point of this header? Of course this doesn't represent a worldwide view, because it's us and Canada with reservations. I'd remove it but I know there'd be some idiotic uproar. Haverton 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the point of it either. Since the person who put the tag didn't indicate why, I'll be bold and remove it. Ash Lux 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rez?

Knowing nothing about American Indian culture, I found this article a reasonable read, but one thing I was left tutting about was the reference to 'the rez' being seen as a racial slur. Why is this so? Based on the information available it seems hypersensitive and irrational as 'the res' (or 'rez' as most Americans would write it) would be merely an abbreviation? Jachin 10:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone argue this either, at least anywhere except this article. I'm adding a request for citation.Chimakwa 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that stood out for me too. OK, I'm white, but I have worked with Indians (with the Forest Service) for a long time, and have heard both Indians and whites (on rare occasion) use "rez" as short-form for reservation, and it never raised an eyebrow. It's just inoffensive, casual slang, as far as I know. I've never said "rez" myself because it would sound so presumptuous, even though I am on reservations now and then. I mean, who am I kidding? The rez? But I doubt that it's a racist term if you are a non-Indian.

Since it is not cited and no one has defended it since October of 06 (as of June 07) I deleted this sentence. 16:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Political status

What is the political staus of these reservations? This is not explained in the article. Are they independent countries?, self-governing sovereign entities (something like Puerto Rica)? or what? Are they part of and subject to the laws of the individual US States (in which case what happens when they span State boundaries)? Are their residents US citizens and can they vote?

I think the article needs expansion to explain what their status is. TiffaF 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this needs expanding upon. As far as I understand it, every Indian, including those who reside in reservations, are full citizens of the United States and accordingly can vote. However, they are subject to more restrictions on behaviour than a "normal" citizen. Also, the reservations have a sort of "quasi-sovereignty" whereby they hold jurisidiction over minor offences committed there. But if, for example, someone was murdered on a reservation then the federal authorities would intervene. 81.86.44.208 16:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they are also Semi-Tax Exempt, I know for a fact that The Allegany Indian Rez in New York, Salamanca to be precise is Tax Exempt cause when my father died [Who was of the Seneca Indian Nation]in 2003 he willed his house to my older brother and the property taxes alone would have been a few thousand a year, and basically all my brother had to pay was utilities; although he didn't get around The Income Tax, he had to fill out his W-2 like everybody else.98.2.162.95 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One reason for Palm Springs, California risen to affluent, luxurious status and popular destination for tourists and retires alike, is the real estate companies taken full advantage of tax-exemption of checkboard 1-square mile lands legally belonging to the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians. The total value of such lands has risen astoundingly for the last 70 years after Palm Springs incorporated as a city in 1938, the majority of it on the Indian reservation lands, and this total value of Palm Springs' land within and outside the Indian Reservation was over $500 million dollars from what I heard. The land owners are not Native Americans/Indians, but need to know and adhere to the usual 99-year land allotment leases by the Agua Caliente tribal board and when the 99 years are up, guess who gets back the land ownership? The Agua Caliente Cahuillas will decide who gets and rents (not technically owns) the very piece of land under jurisdiction of them and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, thus Palm Springs itself alike Salamanca, New York and probably Tulsa, Oklahoma are examples of real estate or economic development by non-Indians on Indian reservations. + Mike D 26 (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian Gaming

Gambling is only covered in minute detail on Wiki, would anyone else be interested in expanding this area? I have content about how some tribes get rich at the expense of others. Also about how tribe members are being kicked out of the tribe because they can not "prove" their blood lines. I think it would make a good topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gohiking (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Indian tribes & agriculture

As the tribes were no longer allowed to hunt in their accustomed manner, they were to be taught the rudiments of agriculture in order to sustain themselves on their new lands.

I'm pretty darn sure that many or most Native American tribes relocated in the 19th century practiced settled agriculture before any contact with Europeans and certainly by the time of their forced relocation, so I'm taking this out.

Slanted View

This article needs to be rewritten from a non slanted point of view. It is now popular to consider Indians as a whole who were "enslaved" by Europeans this is not so. The Navahoo stole land from the Hopi. Both the Aztec and Inca were notorious for going to war and taking land from weaker tribes.

By using words like "Indians have lived their for thousands of years," it makes it seem that there is ONE Indian tribe and it was living peacefully. In reality there were thousands of tribes and many coluded with Europeans to get other Indian lands 4.142.45.50 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)eric

Actually, the article doesn't need to be rewriten and says nothing of "enslavement." It is a historical fact that Indian land was forcibly taken from them by European immigrants and their decendants, irrespective of what Indians did to each other before the arrival of Whites.

I removed that section. It doesn't belong in the overview. It uses the passive voice, is ambiguous (forced how? By whom?) and serves to evoke emotion by the statement "had lived there for thousands of years" at the outset (it is otherwise unnecessary to inform the reader at the overview how many tens, or thousands, or even millions of years the Native Americans had been living there). Add to the History section, where it belongs. 64.221.248.17 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, we have millions of people of European, African and Asian descent born and living in the US, who are not gonna just pack up and go back to Europe, Africa or Asia, and often don't even know their exact heritage, or whether they should go back to Asia, or Africa, or Europe. It's also unfortunate that most Native American tribes ended up in desertous areas, and I wonder how long it will take them to import some one humped dromedary or two humped Bactrian camels, like they already did for the Great Austalian desert? A camel can eat cactus and thorny bush, provide edible meat, and reliable transportation even if you don't have the money to buy a fancy car with bluetooth multimedia features and mini-dvd players on the backs of seats for rear passenger, unnecessary things when you're broke and starving, but without which it is becoming harder and harder to find a new car. By the way there are also some positives in coming of other people to this land, as the other poster says there used to be a lot of warring among the tribes, moreover a lot of them lived in tents, had no horses, and with all this European invasion did come some technological improvement and easier life, I know it's not consolation, just like the Romans used to justify their attack on their neighbors by saying them brought to them technology and good life, and they left the internal affairs alone, Pontius Pilate style of give the people what they want, and they only controlled foreign affairs of occupied people, and collected tax from them, but they also provided peace, government and military defense in exchange for that tax, but in the end almost all occupied people would have preferred being free of Roman domination. But there is always some good side to everything bad, even if you have to look hard for it. Sillybilly (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have requested that this page be moved to a less derogatory title. I would have used Native American, but that can apply to any American born within the United States. -PatPeter 20:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Whether it's sensitive or not, "Indian reservation" is by far the most common name and even used by Native Americans. TJ Spyke 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous Americans do not refer to them as Indian reservations, they simply refer to them as reservations. -PatPeter 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Very common use. I would not object to "Reservation", but it would be impossible to come up with a qualifier that would work. It's a technical term, so whatever is actually used should be used. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I know what you refer to when you say "technical term", but I will ask for a definition, as Westerners once used "Indian" as a technical term for Native Americans for the longest time (mind you some have discarded the term "Native American" for "Indigenous American", the reason I use that term) and now it has become "Indigenous American". "Indian reservation" is not a technical term, it is a derogatory term referring to the land given to Indigenous Americans by the Indian Appropriations Act, derogatory to both Indigenous Americans and real Indians as well. -PatPeter 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current page title is the actual name for the subject in common use; the proposed move target is the proposer's neologism. Moving would be harmful. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As said, "reservation" is the common use, "Indian reservation" is just to differentiate reservations as land from other definitions. If this title is my neologism, place yourself on the opposite side of this discussion, what would you call this page? -PatPeter 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as invented name. Native American reservation would at least have left us something to discuss; but we cannot choose the names we should like things to have out of thin air. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

...how is this title out of thin air? "Native American reservation" could apply to anyone born in the Americas or the U.S.A. -PatPeter 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. 'Indian' is not derogatroy. It is the preferred term of many (most?) American Indians (e.g. Russell Means). Srnec (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Most Indigenous Americans would at least want to be called Native American. Russell Means obviously uses the term American Indian out of habit and the fact that the term "Native American" did not exist when he started his movement. -PatPeter 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he says. Srnec (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Sovereignty"

If certain Indian tribes are "sovereign", can they in principle enter into treaties with other sovereign states other than the United States of America? Has it ever occured (e.g. treaty with USA and United Kingdom)? 118.90.20.3 (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in modern times, it is forbidden by treaty, for example with respect to Canada and the United States; however historically this was common as European players in North America competed with each other for Indian allies. Fred Talk 13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007, also UN Permanent Forum of Indigenous Peoples. Fred Talk 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tribal Law and Order Act

A section is needed on the Tribal Law and Order Act which has now passed the house and will soon be enacted into US law. It expands tribal criminal jurisdiction and reduces dependence on federal prosecutors and law enforcement. Fred Talk 13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian?

Sorry, I'm new to the editing pages, but should it be considered to change the article to Native American Reservation, since Indian Reservation would refer to people from India? I apologize of this is formatted incorrectly and please feel free to tell me how to correctly post suggestions. Wilderness.sky (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You posted correctly. There was a vote/discussion two years ago (see blueish box above). I don't know whether a new vote should be launched. The only suitable title would be Native American Indian Reservation... which gets kinda long. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the US government sources at the bottom of the article; the official term is "Indian reservation". Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Differences between US "Reservations" and Canadian "Reserves"

The Wikipedia article on Indian Reserves in Canada states that, although they are superficially "similar to an American Indian reservation, the histories of the development of reserves and reservations are markedly different." I haven't been able to understand the differences though as they are not clearly explained in either article. I think there should be a specific section where that point is discussed.187.34.69.140 (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The future for the Native American Reservates

I was wondering; I read somewhere that there are more Native Americans starting to live in cities and towns,so in 50 years or so, the reservates will only contain a mere 25000 Native Americans.So, I was wondering: What would happen to the reservates? Will they be majorly gambling industries, with a tiny amount of acres left for the Indians?82.148.199.98 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Take that to indianz.com or another discussion board. Nothing's going to happen to reservations and yes, people are still living on them and will in the future. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Other reservation

Where can I find reservation in Latin America except Brasail? Where can I get information about them?--Kaiyr (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Laws, Taxes, Entitlements, etc.

It would be great if there could be more detail about what laws cover reservations (all federal? Some federal? State?), what taxes residents pay, what federal/state entitlements they get (social security?) etc. There is this very confusing and interesting gray area re the "sovereignty" of Indian reservations, and it would be great for this page to describe it further. — Sam 63.138.152.219 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

All Federal laws automatically apply to Indian reservations, same as they do to US territories, Washington DC, and the 50 states of the union. An Indian reservation is "sovereign" in the same manner as a state of the Union.69.115.242.114 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Title move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed as duplicate (with typo) (non-admin closure) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Indian reservation → Native America reservation – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 173.51.29.188 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Indian reservation → American Indian reservation – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 173.51.29.188 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose both. I assume the first is a typo, but in any case see the previous move request as well as many others in the same spirit on similar topics, which have all failed. In the absence of a new, compelling rationale (indeed, in the absence of any rationale at all, or even minimal proofreading), there's nothing here worth consideration. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Legally, they are "Indian reservations" under U.S. law. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trail of tears

Why is this not mentioned? The earliest reservations were far from ancestral home, and had to walk far, many many died on the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.239.218 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've added a mention of the trail of tears to the history section.Forbes72 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Attempt

Are there attempt to large or create new reservation now?--Kaiyr (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Poputation Increase

In which reservation`s population is increasing? Which reservations have an increasing of population? Which reservations are gaining population? which reservations have growing human population? --Kaiyr (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Federal vs. State level recognition

When I was looking for sources for statistics in the infobox, I realized that this can be an issue. Specifically, I found a source that claims the smallest reservation in the US is the Golden Hill Paugussetts reservation at ~1/4 sq. mile, (CT Mirror http://ctmirror.org/connecticut-political-establishment-odds-tribes/) but this is not one of the federally recognized reservations.(only recognized by the state of Connecticut) My inclination is to limit the scope of this article to federally recognized reservations, but since the issue is contentious,(the tribe is currently pushing for recognition) I'm hoping that's not taking a side in violation of WP:NPOV. Forbes72 (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Law enforcement

The sections began like this:

Crimes in Indian Country have a low priority both with the FBI and most federal prosecutors. Serious crimes have often been either poorly investigated, or prosecution has been declined.

This is problematic enough that I removed it, pending serious sourcing. Specifically:

• "low prio with the FBI" - the link is not only dead, it appears to leave it up to the reader itself to draw the conclusions. That's not a source. To readd back this statement we really need an authorative source saying it is so.

• "most federal prosecutors" and "prosecution has been declined" - completely unsourced

• "most X" and "often been" are warning signals that the claims are sweeping and not well sourced.

Look, I'm not trying to deny indian crime gets the short end of the stick. I'm saying we can't say this without sources. CapnZapp (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Indian reservation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would like to add about five paragraphs and other references/links since the article does not develop the land tenure structure extant on Indian reservations under federal Indian law. Shall I proceed or wait until your larger project is further along? Thank you. 75.85.37.146 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 9/28/09 (Americo2)

Last edited at 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indian reservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304094730/http://www.denverpost.com/lawlesslands to http://www.denverpost.com/lawlesslands
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304043343/http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_15373276 to http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_15373276
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304082720/http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15636761 to http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15636761

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr.

I recommend removing the section on MLK's first visit to an Indian reservation. How is this section sufficiently significant to the topic of Indian Reservations? Only interesting from the standpoint of someone researching MLK. His visit didn't have any noteworthy impact on Indian Reservations and there is no citiation of it significatly impacting King or his work. I personally wouldn't even think this would warrant a mention, much less a separate section. Maybe a mention in the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation (where I see it already can be found...I would probably pare that section back as well). Hughpac (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian reservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041217202126/http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s523.html to http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s523.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian reservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408211757/http://millercenter.org/president/grant/essays/biography/4?ModPagespeed=noscript to http://millercenter.org/president/grant/essays/biography/4?ModPagespeed=noscript
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tallies/tallyair.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch5GARM.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910144940/http://www.doi.gov/bia/TLD-Final.pdf to http://www.doi.gov/bia/TLD-Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Map doesn't seem the best

I'm clueless about modifying any entry and somebody has put their soul into this page so I sure wouldn't rain on their parade:

Map not helpful: a. labels everything with numbers referencing a list that is not find-able or used in the article (As-posted in External Links in this article, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1034/ML103430075.pdf doesn't exist at that link) b. does not exist on a .gov server today to then find the list c. shows places that are not on a 2019 list of reservations; e.g. 157, 158, 159 in NC/TN/GA area

Solution I find: https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/bia/ots/webteam/pdf/idc1-028635.pdf huge size, readable, labels all of them with words not numbers referencing a list that is not in the article

Don't like that, then: a. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Bia-map-indian-reservations-usa.png b. https://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/BIA_2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.16.69 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)